Posted
by
samzenpuson Monday October 08, 2012 @11:08AM
from the check-the-tires dept.

concealment writes "At the end of August this year, the US Department of Transport's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced new standards to significantly improve the fuel economy of cars and light trucks by 2025. Last week, we took a look at a range of recent engine technologies that car companies have been deploying in aid of better fuel efficiency today. But what about the cars of tomorrow, or next week? What do Detroit, or Stuttgart, or Tokyo have waiting in the wings that will get to the Obama administration's target of 54.5 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2025?"

Spot on. I half intended to make a sarcastic post about how all we need is to get everyone to be willing to drive a plastic car with a 40 hp engine, but truly for a lot of people including me, a small (but safe) car is sufficient.

I actually sold cars briefly. One customer who stuck in my mind was a little old lady who really wanted an 8 cylinder engine. This was about 1990. She might have settled for a 6, but a 4 was no sale, no way. Blew my mind. My own 4 cylinder car sitting in the parking lot, barely out of econo-box class, would do 120 mph. What the hell did she think she needed an 8 cylinder engine for?!? She would not be swayed. A lot of us, me included, are not so different from that old lady.

A poorly designed merge section from one highway to another is what convinced me I needed a quick car.
It isn't safe merging into 60+ MPH traffic at 30 MPH. Top speed typically isn't a problem but acceleration on cars with wimpy engines is.

227hp awd in the snow is indeed fun. and not unreasonable, IMHO. Wanting a V8 was her generation's "I want a car that isn't klunky". That it doesn't have to be a V8 anymore is her ignorance of the changes in engine technology. But, for the young whipersnappers out there, keep in mind that in the early 80s, Mustangs with "sport tuned" engines had V8s that made 140hp. Seriously. The old lady probably experienced a 4-banger of that era, which were uniformly pathetic. As an ex-Pinto owner, I understand her feeling.

As a car salesman, you need to put her into a 16valve 4cyl turbo to help her understand that cylinders alone does not measure power very well.:-) And it would be funny...

Anyone can merge if the ramp is long enough. The problem the op described was the short ramps in which i find new 4 cylinder cars have difficulty getting up to speed. There are a lot of clover loop ramps in the east and mid west. These are particularly problematic because you have to merge on the off ramp of the same lane you are trying to pull into. You are literally trying to get up to speed while dodging people slowing down to exit.

Also, the older 4 and 6 cyl engines were something wanting compared the v8 engines. The automatic transmissions of the time seemed to amplify this lacking of abilities quit a bit. It was still noticeably in standard shift cars but not as drastic. The old lady in question is probably going from experience over the years. I have driven some pretty peppy 4 cylinder cars and some v6 engines that would rival a v8. To this day, I'm still skeptical about small engines and automatic transmissions until I drive them and see it isn't the crap of yesteryear.

As a general rule, you are correct, a manual transmission will allow for more accurate application of power, and a torque converter does "cost" more horsepower than a clutch (excluding a locked up converter, but an automatic is still generally less efficient). However, considering a large portion of the discussion has included turbocharged cars, things get much different at that point. An automatic allows you to increase load on the engine without ha

I drive a pretty wimpy car around a really busy city (Austin, TX) and I've never had a problem getting up to a safe merging speed. In fact, the bigger risk around here is people going 60 mph on the on ramp for a highway when traffic on the highway is only going 20 mph. Perhaps there are other reasons besides safety that you feel you need to drive a car with a lot of get up and go?
Of course, as everything I mentioned is anecdotal your mileage may vary....

I live in Austin, and my family has a wimpy car (16-year-old Miata with a manual transmission) and newer cars (BMWs with both manual and automatic transmission).

Getting the Miata up to highway speeds can be a challenge. I have to merge onto Mopac north and south every day, including taking the north-bound Mopac on-ramp from 2222, where the on ramp is a tight loop. I can wind out the transmission but if people don't get over I'm not going to merge successfully. The 645 can merge wherever because I can meet and beat highway speeds to find a safe gap.

Honestly though, I think the problem with wimpy engine cars is the poor quality of turbochargers. My wife used to have a few Jettas and the turbo lag was atrocious. I recently saw though that there was new turbocharger technology that can "pre-charge" them or somesuch, effectively eliminating the lag. If those become standard, then turbochargers are great and smaller engines will be significantly more successful. (Also, as I see someone else mention, hybrids can solve this easily as well, as electric motors can provide the merge boost too.)

Most of the time I find people complain about turbo lag I find that they are shifting too soon which keeps the turbo spooled down. Small 4-cyl engines like to be above 2000+rpm compared to 1500rpm that you find in V8/V6 engines.

I recently saw though that there was new turbocharger technology that can "pre-charge" them or somesuch, effectively eliminating the lag.

Years ago I read an article about a research vehicle that contained a compressor and air tank. When the engine had spare power it would compress air and fill the air tank. When it needed extra power, it would use the compressed air to supercharge the engine (burn more fuel on each piston stroke).

But then they took it a step further: you could use household electric power to pre-fill the air tank. Then you could use the compressed air (without fuel) to start the engine, eliminating the need for a starter motor and big lead acid battery. And for short trips, and in places where tailpipe emissions are a problem (such as tunnels, or underground garages) you could run entirely on compressed air to move the pistons without burning any fuel.

By reducing the size of the engine, eliminating the starter motor, reducing the battery size, and shifting part of the energy load from gasoline to grid electricity, they estimated this vehicle could consume 20% less gas while costing less to manufacture.

Does anyone else remember seeing this? Does anyone know why this idea never took off?

And acceleration despite a relatively wimpy engine is on major problem that hybrids are designed to tackle. The electric motor isn't enough to drive you very far or very fast on its own, but combining the power of the relatively wimpy internal combustion engine with the power of a relatively wimpy electric motor gives you enough power to merge onto a freeway or go up a steep hill with some confidence. When you don't need that extra power, the relatively wimpy engine is well chosen to give you good fuel economy at highway cruising speed.

Yeah, the problem is getting people to actually buy the high-mileage cars. Here's U.S. car and light truck sales data since 1931 [wardsauto.com]. Light trucks are a separate category under CAFE, and don't have to get as high MPG. Consequently they can be built bigger (relatively) and with more powerful engines. From 1931 to the 1970s (when CAFE was first implemented), light truck sales represented about 15%-20% of passenger vehicle sales. Since CAFE was implemented, light truck sales have climbed to over 50%.

People in general want the big, powerful "cars" and don't care if they get crappy mileage. Forcing the manufacturers to improve mileage isn't going to change that. It makes me think CAFE is partially based on the conspiracy theory that automakers could make 100 MPG cars, but are all in cahoots with oil companies to keep mileage low. That simply isn't the case - consumers are the ones favoring low mileage cars because of the advantages they offer: extra space, extra safety, more power.

If you want to encourage increased average vehicle mileage, this supply-side market manipulation just doesn't work that well. It needs to be done via demand-side market manipulation. Jack up fuel taxes to make gasoline more expensive. Then people will start to favor fuel economy more over size, safety, and power.

Part of what you say is true, but that is not the whole story.... Some people don't just WANT large inefficient cars, they NEED large gas-guzzling vehicles.

Take, for example, me. I have five kids (three are adopted, so no preaching about overpopulating the Earth). Add the wife, and I need a vehicle to carry at least seven people. Good luck finding a 50 MPG car that can do that. If the whole world drove tiny 50 MPG cars, I would need TWO of them to get anywhere on the weekend -- making an effective 25 MPG.

Look at it this way: on the weekend, I typically have 7 or 8 people in my average 18.8 MPG van. Not great gas mileage, but that works out to be 150 miles/gallon/PERSON. To match that, you would have to cram four people in a Prius.

Don't get me wrong. I would love to have better fuel efficienty. If my wife and I did not have any kids, I would likely get a smart car or some other little econo-box. But that simply will not work for my family. I live in a rural area. It is pretty common to see a pickup pulling a trailer with a couple of tons of hay for horses/cattle. How many trips woult that take in a Volt with the back seat crammed full of hay? Sometimes, bugger IS better.

I am worried about the day when fuel efficiency is mandated such that larger vehicles are essentially no longer produced.

The number who actually need less efficient cars are far fewer than those that actually have them. So, yes there are exceptions, but honestly, there are very few people who actually have five kids these days.

I do absolutely agree with you. There is a difference between "want" and "need." A few "need" and a lot "want." The problem is, however, who determined the difference? Raising gas prices by an insane amount would certainly drive people to cheaper cars, but it would have a disproportional impact on people like me who legitimately NEED a larger vehicle. Should you have to show proof that you need a larger car before buying one?

Honesty, I think that $3.63/gallon right now where I live is certainly an incentive in what you buy. I remember when I was younger, people really did not even pay attention to the gas mileage rating of a car. Now, it is a selling point, so a lot of people are getting it.

I am worried about the day when fuel efficiency is mandated such that larger vehicles are essentially no longer produced.

The station wagon was legislated away and the SUV took its place. I figure once they mandate away SUVs, we'll start seeing commercial vehicles converted for passenger use. I look forward to my future Mack or Kenworth 18 wheeled family car.

Seriously, though, I bought a Ford Escape Hybrid for my wife and baby. The rear cargo area holds exactly one stroller, one pack'n'play, and one duffel bag. Nothing more. I posted about this once before and the slashdot community accused my wife and I of being too obese to fit in the car, which is absolutely not the case. It's just not that big. Of course, around here, they think you should let your offspring cling to your neckbeard as you go vacation in the park next to your highrise city apartment.

Ditto. I climbed in a Prius V expecting to have to cram in - and came out astonished. My 50-pound daughter "fell" off the seat onto the floor - and had more than enough room to sit cross-legged and then stand up. It had more room in the back seat than most of the SUVs (and, it turns out the EU version actually seats 6 because it uses a different battery pack).

Didn't buy it (wife didn't like acceleration), but damn if it wasn't in the final 3 (out of 20+ tested).

Except that the F150 will not have to get 54.5MPG by 2025. It will only need to hit 30MPG by then due to the cluster fuck of regulations that CAFE is. That 30MPG only translates to about 23MPG in real world driving. Part of the problem is that a lot of the CAFE standards are based around the footprint of the vehicle. This provides the car manufacturers with no incentive to give the US small cars since they have to meet much tougher efficiency standards. Go read the link for more information.http://jalopnik.com/5948172/how-the-government-killed-fuel-efficient-cars-and-trucks

I run a 2.0 litre 4-cyl Volvo V40 compact estate (station wagon), which is now 11 years old. Over my last 10,000 miles I have had an average fuel economy (brim to brim method) of 37.5mpg - in imperial gallons. So you might say my technologically crude car is pretty close and a little improvement such as start-stop, higher final gearing ratios, low-rolling-resistance tyres, maybe a mild hybrid system, and use of aluminium instead of steel for structures might get it there

BUT: That's about 31.2mpg in US gallons. I wonder how many Brits are reading this, thinking 'My diesel car does better than that' - and not realising that actually the Americans have set themselves a bar thats 20% higher than it appears to us as their gallons are smaller - 65mpg in fact.

A handful of cars do manage that - VW's Bluemotion range for instance, and equivalents from other makers. But a Prius doesn't and my Volvo never will (I'm planning to convert it to LPG instead)....

ah but that is the point it isn't average daily use we buy a car for. most of us can only afford one maybe two cars. therefore we need something that is not only suitable to dealing with average daily use, but also the use that we enjoy. weather it is hauling boats for once a month weekend trips, loading up for vacations, or even hauling your kids and their friends around to various sporting events(both with them as players and just going out).

I owned a full size jeep for years. terrible milage but that vehicle took me every where I wanted to go hauling all sorts of fun stuff. my next car I couldn't do that with. it may be fuel efficient but if the roads aren't perfect it doesn't like it. I miss my jeep several times a year when i need to go move something, drag something or simply go somewhere where the roads aren't in great condition.

Being able to rent a trailer and is much easier than renting a truck or van that's big enough.

Average daily use isn't what we buy a car for we buy for all of our needs and it mostly gets used for average daily needs.

Because the truth is that American cars are much bigger, heavier, and generally safer than European cars. Numerous, (rather popular!) European cars that get excellent fuel economy (better than 40 MPG) simply cannot be imported because they'd miserably fail the crash tests.

To be sold in America, new cars must have a crash cage around the passenger compartment, around which are various crumple zones that absorb impact and improve passenger safety. Crash cages, by design, must be very strong in order to prevent passengers from getting crushed by stupid amounts of energy. This makes them heavy, and that makes it darn hard to get decent fuel economy, especially in stop & go traffic. (weight isn't nearly as much of a penalty on freeways, particularly on flat ground, though hills steep enough to require braking on the downhill runs can get rather inefficient rather quickly)

Bullshit. All cars sold in Europe follow safety standards equivalent to those in North America, and have had 'crash cages' for nearly 50 years.

The main difference is cultural expectations about car size. As an example, the Ford Focus, what Americans consider to be a 'small' car, has 2 models smaller than it in Europe (the Ka and the Fiesta), and the Focus is considered here in the UK to be a 'medium' sized family car. The Ford Mondeo, very similar to the Fusion in the USA, is considered to be 'large'. Ford do not sell a larger car than the Mondeo in Europe.

Engine size expectations are similar. Here a 2.0L I4 is considered a normal, reasonably powerful engine. An 'economy' car would have a 1.4 or a 1.6. A 3.0L V6 would be considered a 'fast car' here. V8s are almost unheard of.

Amusingly European cars generally have faster top speeds than American cars, despite the smaller engines. Some years ago I took an American on a road trip (along with other people) and he was amazed that my 1.8L Ford Escort could achieve 135mph. Here if a V6 can't get to at least 150mph it's considered to be a bit crap.

Combined with redefinition. Unemployment is low and dropping because labor force participation rate is dropping even faster. Eventually none of us will have jobs, but as we stand in the soup lines we'll see unemployment has dropped to merely 5% and good times are right around the corner.

So we'll simply redefine such that the only "automobiles" on the road subject to the 60 mpg limit will be smart cars and Fiat Puntos (a real car, I rented and drove one in Ireland, and it was a fun and surprisingly comfortable little car). Tahoes Expeditions Escalades and the like will be redefined to be 4-wheeled motorcycles thus exempt from the 60 mpg regulation.

I live in the US now, but I lived in France until a few years ago.The market is quite different in ways most people do not see.

First of all, the weather condition in the US are very variating from a region to the other one. I live in ohio and we get snow about 5 month per year. That's a mid alps type of snow. Having a good traction is important. Most people will get "all seasons tires", which is fairly stupid, but that's what people do.

Then, the road condition are different. I was reading recently that US policitians prefer opening new roads than fixing existing ones. The road are bad in the US in general compared to your average road in France. Having a car that can take bad roads is important.

Most people will travel long distance, having a confortable car is important. You frequently hear "I'll drive there, it is only 18 hours driving away". People think whenever they buy a car, that they might travel for days in it.

There might be issues on familly sizes as well, but I could not find good comparative data on it (beside fertility rate which does not mean too much).

In France, half the problem of having a car is parking it. Parking is typically not an issue here. So there is less incentive for small cars.

Importing car from the european market is difficult. European cars are more expensive to buy and to insure than american or japanese cars.

I don't think the color matters, since it's even more un-American to actually use the turn signals. If you must use one, then leave it on for at least fifteen minutes. By no means should you actually do what the signal indicates.

There's nothing legal preventing American cars from having amber turn signals. My 90s Acura has them from the factory. Many/most American-made cars have red signals simply because the law allows it, and it's cheaper from a manufacturing perspective (they just use the same lens color as the brake lights).

The problem with turn signals is as "Convector" here says: it's un-American to actually use them properly. Either you don't use them, or you leave them on for your entire drive, or if you're in Mississippi, you use them to signal that people in front of you are turning, even though you intend to continue straight.

For produces the 3 cylinder turbo direct inject engine here in America. But due to tax regulations and big oil with their hand in every pot of the USA they are not allowed to sell them in the USA. Many German cars in there diesel versions in Europe can exceed the 60MPG mark due the necessity of their higher fuel prices than the US.

2) European fuel mileage is determined using a different test than U.S. EPA mileage. There's less stop-and-go in the EU tests.

Consequently it's not unusual for models which hit 50+ MPG in the EU to not even break 40 MPG in the EPA tests. CAFE uses a different test than EPA though. I'm not sure how CAFE mileage stacks up to EU mileage.

3) Diesel contains about 12%-15% more mass and energy per gallon. Consequently it also puts out about 12%-15% more pollutants per gallon. So unless you're comparing on price or range on same sized fuel tank, you need to tweak diesel's MPG down to draw a fair comparison with gasoline MPG.

4) When you distil a barrel of oil, some of it will naturally distil into diesel, some into gasoline. It's relatively easy to convert heavy fuels like diesel into gasoline. It's very difficult and expensive to convert light fuels like gasoline and kerosene into diesel. Consequently the most energy-efficient approach is to just take the fractions of diesel and gasoline which comes out naturally from the distillation process. The next-most energy-efficient approach is to favor gasoline.

So for consumption you want to err on the side which favors gasoline consumption. Diesel is only a cost-effective fuel competitor to gasoline because there are lots of gas-consuming cars. If you lower gasoline consumption below the production from natural distillation, diesel starts to become much more expensive. Whereas if gasoline consumption rises above natural production fractions, you can simply cook diesel a bit to break it down and make more gasoline.

As far as I know, there aren't ant european diesels than can pass our current emission standards, regardless of the milage.

This is not true any more. Euro diesels since about 05 and above have exceeded the US emissions standards. The only thing holding it back now is misinformation and the stigma of diesel as something only for big rigs and tractors.

I am sorry - but this is not true. Why is it that if I want to purchase a diesel from VW, Mercedes, or BMW, and do the European pickup (where you pay $3k, they fly you to the factory, you drive the car for a week, and then they ship it to the US for you), you have to SPECIFICALLY get the US emissions, which is $3-5k more than the European standards? You have to have all the specifics in documentation. I know the NO2 is like one tenth the US level which requires the Urea and regenerative particulate filters (thus eating about 3-5 US MPG). Many of the European car companies are implementing these on their Euro models now so that they are "greener" and that they can lower costs to not have to build two lines.

Try to Buy a European Diesel engine. So for example, I want to buy a VW engine so I can put that in a Jeep Wrangler. Great, I have to buy the US model, and all the extras for it just to make it US EPA compliant, while already by default Euro compliant.

Where do you get that idea from? Diesel is from a different fraction than gasoline (petrol). One is not an opportunity cost for the other when you refine the oil. You can't "dial back" gasoline to get more diesel and vice versa.

Nope. Lighter materials could be as safe as heavier materials; you could use advanced aluminum honeycomb structures for instance to absorb energy (didn't the McLaren F1 have a chassis with this stuff?). However, doing so is much more expensive than using the same stamped-and-welded steel that cars have been using since the early 1900s.

I'm a Brit. I understand the tradition, and history of US cars, and that this holds a place for many American people. But your business and political angles don't work well for you here. Most of the US car makers already make fuel efficient engines and models for other parts of the world. I don't know if its parts of the US car industry and some political levels that are messing around - but they should stop.

At some stage the US will face a fuel hit. It would be much better to have the things lined up than be caught out. Your citizens should not face that having mistakenly bought high fuel consumption models after being decieved or lied to by car makers or political fools. The car is central to life in the US. The fuel munching car has no real future in this.

This is 99% cultural/political i suppose. Unless you haul a dirtbike or sheep *most* of the time when you use the vehicle, you don't need a truck. There is no way all those F150 and similar are actually used to haul things even 10% of the time. It's absolutely imperative that the US govt remove any tax advantages on trucks/SUVs unless they already have. A regular 4x4 with a cheap trailer does the exact same job, but also hauls 5 people and luggage so you don't need a truck AND a car. Here is also a big dif

American trucks and their owners are such a fucking joke. They put these giant cartoon pickup bodies on little wheels with street tires, give them ground clearance that still gives them obstacle-clearing capability similar to a car, waste tons of bed space on big bulging fenders and then most of them don't get used for anything a compact or mid-sized car couldn't do.

The only sensible American pickups are some of the "compact" ones like the newer Ranger, which aren't even primarily aimed at the US market.

Blimey. Just had a look at the Ford F-150. To provide an overview for my fellow Britons:

That thing (F-150) is five and a half metres long, two metres wide and one point nine metres tall. Even if you're really, really tall, you still wouldn't be able to see over the roof, you'd still be able to lie down in it sideways, and it would take six paces to walk from the front bumper to the rear. It won't fit into a standard European parking space through the two horizontal dimensions, and won't fit vertically through most multi-storey car park "Max Headroom" barriers either. It weighs over two tonnes even before you put anyone or anything inside it.

For comparison, a massive gas-guzzling British car such as the Vauxhall Zafira 7-seater has a maximum engine size of 1.9 litres, produces only 148hp and weighs 1.5 tonnes.

The F-150's smallest engine is 3.5 litres and produces 350hp. That is roughly the same as a high-end BMW 5-series. Yup, their smallest engine is the same as a top-end BMW engine. That 3.5 litre, 350hp engine is branded the "eco" version.

I could understand this if Americans drove everywhere. But from my repeated and frequent trips to the USA, my experience is - they don't. They drive hardly anywhere - they generally just drive to the shops or to work, plus a few outings to nearby towns and parks within a couple of hundred miles. Sure, Americans make a lot of journies, but they don't tend to be very long ones. Anywhere much further, they FLY and get a hire car. They don't generally, for example, take their cars on long-distance holidays like Europeans do. They don't ever get in their car in, say, New York and drive all the way to Charleston; they fly. Whereas lots of Europeans would think nothing of getting in our cars in, say, Manchester, and driving all the way to Bordeaux, or starting a journey in Rome and driving to Zurich.

+ insightful.
Ford make EcoBoost. It really is a good bit of kit from what i've read. They had to make it or fail as a company on the world stage as they had nothing to match Europe or Asia makers.

Ford sells the EcoBoost in the latest F-150, which is the most popular vehicle sold in the US. That's how it is going to happen: trucks will get 30 mpg and cars will get 70 mpg. Sell in equal numbers (which cars and trucks usually do in the US) and you'll be right at your CAFE average.

You cannot reach energy independence and still burn oil at greater rates

Sure you can. Here's the plan, which, couched in nicer terms, is basically what the Project for a New American Century [newamericancentury.org] advocates:1. Take over oil-rich areas via military force.2. Install puppet governments to rule over those areas.3. Demand that your puppet states sell you oil really cheaply, and charge a really high tariff to sell it to anyone else. If they refuse to comply, depose and replace the puppet. Repeat as many times as necessary until you get a compliant puppet.4. Use the oil to improve your mili

The answer to better mpg, traffic shaping, less accidents is - as much as I hate to say it - is autonomous cars.

They can drive at the best measured MPG zone, they don't get distracted, they have faster response times than human drivers. They don't hit the gas pedal stopping you from merging onto the highway or changing lanes, they don't pass illegally or drive recklessly. Numerous studies have shown that traffic jams are simply caused by people following too closely.

I don't know for sure, but I really think the next evolution of vehicle transport will be autonomous.

Think of it like an indirect form of cap and trade. Nobody says you can't drive a giant SUV, just that if you do you have to find someone else who will agree to drive small car. If there are not enough of the latter to go around, then they can demand a significant fee for this service. The government is artificially limiting the amount of Gallons per Mile in the marketplace, but the allocation of that commodity is still left to supply and demand.

55 miles per gallon = 0.0427662879 l / kilometer says google.
1 liter per 23,382903897 per kilometer is nothing special and is done with normal cars TODAY.
So the goal of doing that by 2025 is quite ridiculous.
See the modern Volkswagens, maybe the Prius (although the hybrid stuff is debatable), etc.
Also do think about diesel instead of 'gas': it is way more easy to have high MPG with diesel.

The thing is, it is not all attributable to efficiencies (although diesel's higher compression ratios do help in that regard). Diesel averages much longer-chain hydrocarbons and thus has a higher ratio of higher-energy C-C bonds to lower energy C-H bonds per gallon, and thus has more energy per gallon. This also means more CO2 per gallon. So you can't really compare MPG between gas and diesel engines. Us nerds would prefer to see kilometers per kilojoule for a better comparison, but we probably won't.

1. Realize safety is one goal among many and that we have to deal with tradeoffs. Over the past 30 years it's been "the engineer giveth and the safety inspector taketh away" as overblown concerns about collision readiness have turned into absurd safety regulations and a curb weight arms race.

2. Raise the gas tax [washingtonpost.com] to reflect the real costs of driving- the tremendous spending on road construction and maintenance, the externalities associated with road congestion and pollution, etc. Everyone who's willing to be honest about the impact of different policies, from Greg Mankiw [blogspot.com] (former chairman of the CEA and an adviser to Romney) to Steven Chu (Obama's energy secretary), knows that this is the only realistic way forward.

Higher gas taxes would be much much less distortionary and harmful to the economy than simply mandating higher fuel standards. The gas tax is also a better way to raise revenue than most other taxes; a revenue-neutral bill raising the gas tax while lowering the taxes on labor and productivity (payroll, corporate, income, etc) would be a huge boon to the economy.

Of course, I don't expect either of these two things to happen, since political bickering and accusations ("you want to see more Americans dying on the highways! you want to put the pain on us every time we go to the pump!") will probably trump any kind of attempt to bring our policies back in contact with reality.

Yeah, and if people stopped eating meat we'd need a lot less grain. And if people started keeping their thermostats at 55F, we'd need a lot less gas/electric/oil. If people would top watching TV, that would also save a lot of energy.

But people like to eat meat, they like to stay warm, they like to watch TV... and wait for it... they like fast cars.

Yes, but those people must, quite properly, defer to their moral and intellectual superiors who know how much meat is allowable, if any and who know how warm you can be allowed to be in winter and who know whether you ought to be allowed to watch TV, how much and what programs and, well, pretty much everything.

Now, isn't it reasonable that the superior should advise the inferior and dictate to them if their inferiority prevents them from properly obeying?

Sometimes, a lot of times, yes. Remember that story from a couple of days ago about people shooting lasers at aircraft? People don't always see the big picture or have time to focus on the details of the environmental/health/safety impacts of all of their choices, because they have shit to do. So they pay the government to make those decisions for them.

When I walk into a supermarket I *want* someone to have written a bunch of food safety standards so that I'm reasonably confident in the food I buy, and r

What problem? That was my whole point - I don't see the problem. People like big, fast cars, and the market supplies them - that's a pretty good problem to have. Raising the fuel efficiency standards will just make those cars cost more. Your example is an example of this: the 1.6 in the Fiesta is a nice little mass-produced Sigma thing... actually pretty respectable given it's cost. The EcoBoost is more complicated and more expensive. It isn't rocket science - people with too much money have been turbo char

OK. I'm down to 10mpg average when I really flog it. To get any lower I've got to start driving a 3 ton behemoth so outrageous it was banned by the demotion derby. Really ought to just be left to appreciate, but sense you insist I'll drive it (6mpg) more often.

As an aside I was talking to a truck driver as I loaded him up (45 tonnes of bulk) and he said with the new generation of big diesel rigs with scads of horsepower (600 is typical) and lots of torque (pulling along at 1500 rpm is easy) that he gets fantastic fuel economy. On flat roads while crusing, he gets about 6 mpg! That's amazing fuel economy for a big rig! Might be imperial gallons so not as amazing. But still we have come a long ways in fuel efficiency.

As an aside I was talking to a truck driver as I loaded him up (45 tonnes of bulk) and he said with the new generation of big diesel rigs with scads of horsepower (600 is typical) and lots of torque (pulling along at 1500 rpm is easy) that he gets fantastic fuel economy. On flat roads while crusing, he gets about 6 mpg! That's amazing fuel economy for a big rig!

We'll use European cars that already get that sort of milage! Not sure if Americans know, but cars in the US are stupidly large for no good reason. Might help the fuel bills to get a smaller, more practical car. Oh yeah, some people in the US are stupidly large, for no good reason either. Might help food bills...

Tell you what, you can put those "more practical" Europoean cars at the dealerships right next to the "stupidly large" cars that are there now. We'll even mandate that each car will have affixed a sticker that details the predicted impact to one's fuel bills. Heck, we can even subsidize that small car and penalize [nhtsa.gov] the ones that don't meet efficiency targets.

Then we'll let the car buyer decide whether the double-extra cost of the larger vehicle, both from increased base cost and penalties, is worth it and my bet is still on the larger car because that's where the consumer preference lies. That's the bottom line -- that you are at variance with what people actually want to buy and the "fight" to sell more smaller vehicles is a fight against those desires.

[ Note, FWIW, when I had a car, I drove a small sedan because that's where my preference lay. I would pay no heed to belittling condescension that called my choice stupid irrespective of whether I drove that or a SUV. ]

[ Note2, There are a lot of neat smaller cars (Ford Fusion, VW Golf) that American consumers will buy. I assure you, however, none of them were sold on those cars by someone calling larger cars "stupid" or by insulting consumers. Instead, they actually made a positive contribution by designing a small car that consumers like. ]

What a crock. I live in london , I'm over 6 foot and 210lbs and I've never had any trouble fitting in any car. Unless you're the height of a basket ball player or you're a 400 lb ball of sweaty lard because you can't leave off the donuts then there's no reason you can't either.

If Jeremy Clarkson at 6'5" can be comfortable in a VW Polo, I think you're either doing it wrong or just are really unlucky with the cars you're getting. The Polo is hardly a gas guzzler. It's in the "mini" category, the only smaller one being "supermini".

I drive 40+ miles to work each day. I am about to drive 250+ miles to meet with a customer. America is not as densely populated as Europe. Cars are how we travel. This is why we won't buy the small cars that are popular in Europe.

This is rubbish, the average commute is rather short and comparable on both sides of the pond, and I regularly drive straight through France and Germany. We too drive a lot.

The real reason why large cars don't sell and small cars do sell in Europe is because of the insane gas prices. When you pay $10/gallon you will change your driving habits or your type of car.

I just got myself a new car which is quite large for European standards, it goes 40mpg which is decent. But more and more commuters are going for efficient smaller cars (50-60mpg) because of increasing fuel costs, the difference means that the car pays for itself within a few years.

If fuel costs were the same I'd bet every family here would want an SUV too.

You speak with a certain amount of sarcasm, but the laws actually have an interesting effect, and do affect the gas mileage.

The way it works is this. Each company must keeps its CAFE above the legal limit. To do this, they may not (by law) sell cars that are below the CAFE if their corporate average is currently below the CAFE. So, that means that Ford cant sell trucks because they are below the limit, but can sell Fusions and Focus'. Then when they sell enough of the little jobs, and their average comes up a little, then they can sell a few SUVs. The end result is that law of supply and demand will drive the cost of those SUVs through he roof, but the little econ o-box will get cheaper and cheaper. In fact, car companies may be willing to take a small loss on the econ o-box just so it can sell one high margin SUV. For the average citizen, it will make the gas-guzzlers financially out of reach, which is the way it should be.

I know a guy who bought a pickup truck (16 MPG), and drives it 40 miles a day commute because he can only afford the one vehicle. He got the truck because twice a year he uses it to haul yard materials home from the garden store... I suggested he could just rent a u haul, but he said he didn't want to spend the $100 bucks for a u haul... Just goes to show that most Americans have the financial savvy of a 10 year old.

I'm the same, but with a less extreme difference: I'm a single guy, no large family to lug around, but I love camping, mountain biking and going on road trips with my friends. So I drive a compact estate car (Volvo V40) and take the economy hit for the practicality of having it always there, never having to worry about having too much stuff with me for the trip, etc. I know I should buy a Ka or Micra and borrow or rent larger vehicles as needed.. but the convenience of permanent ownership means a lot even t

The only reason why we don't have Hummers and Semi's getting 150mpg is because we don't have the courage to pass a law demanding it.

I take it your not a driver of a semi nor the O/O of one.
They are already turbo charged, they already have to meet air quality standards that make the exhaust cleaner than the air the engine takes in.
All of that pollution control makes for a 8 MPG vehicle when it is pulling 48,000 pounds of goods.

Demand that semi's get better mileage is admirable but really short sighted. Force the trucking companies and O/O to meet unrealistic goals just means they WILL pass that cost onto each and every bit of freight they haul

care for $10 pound ground beef? Milk costing $7 or $8 a gallon? That is what will happen if laws like that are passed.

The real question is going to be what that does to the electric grid. No way we are ready for even 10% of the cars to be EV today - we simply do not have the generation capacity. Oh, and such cars are going to charge at home at night, so any solar PV system is useless. I do not see suburbs putting up wind turbines between houses, so we are going to have a real electric supply problem.

Electric vehicles do not use as much power off the grid as people think. To put it in perspective, a 20 mile per day commute uses the same electricity monthly as leaving four CRT monitors on all the time. They use only 25% of the consumption of a 4-TON AC unit during June, July and August (typical household AC) They use the same power monthly as a single 8000 BTU window air conditioner... Converting all of the private commuter vehicles to EVs today would only increase electricity consumption by 20%. While this would require some increase in infrastructure, it is not the end-of-the-world scenario that everyone keeps claiming. It is well within what we could achieve within the scope of normal market supply and demand. The introduction of the television had a much more profound impact on our electricity consumption...

I loved my 1987 CRX HF. It wasn't useful for much other than commuting though, and only for 2 people. That kind of car is useless to 80% of households out there, who need a car to do more than just move one or two people from point A to point B.

I can't take my family anywhere in a sub 1-ton 2-seater.

Of course, the other end of that spectrum is the drove of people who drive solo to work every day in a Suburban, and then bitch about gas prices.

Yes - take the safest, most experienced drivers off of the road. Great idea. Question: How does the freight get from the trains stations and river barge depots to its destination with trucks off of the road?

In any case, car crash standards aren't written to save cars from trucks. They're to save occupants who crash with other cars and stationary objects.

Ok, so what do you do when it's 13 deg. F (-10.5 C) outside, with a 40 mph wind? Have you ever driven a 2-wheeled vehicle on ice or in the snow? Or when it's pouring down rain?

What do you do when you have to take your kid to hockey practice? You may be able to fit all the "weekly shopping" on it, but will it hold all the pads, bags and sticks required for hockey? What if you have 3 kids that play hockey?